Due date: Wednesday 8 October, via e-mail before lecture
For this theme, you have a choice among the following essay topics:
Discuss what makes perpetual peace possible, according to Kant, and noting both the strengths and weaknesses of his argument. Why does Kant insist that perpetual peace is possible? Would it matter for his argument if perpetual peace were found to be impossible? For a more detailed description of this topic, see here.
What are Hegel's objections to Kant's ideas about perpetual peace? What is the function of war in human history for Hegel? How might Kant reply to Hegel's objections, if at all? Who has the better argument? For a more detailed description of this topic, see here.
Does perpetual peace require a fundamental transformation in economic relations? Discuss Marx and Engels’s arguments in connection with Kant’s or Mill's arguments on the progressive improvement of humankind. For a more detailed description of this topic, see here.
Does it make sense to say that there is moral progress in history? Discuss the arguments on the progressive direction of history of at least two of the following philosophers: Kant, Hegel, Mill, and Marx. Identify the sense in which history is for them “progressive” and the mechanisms of such progress. Are these arguments plausible? What are some objections? For a more detailed description of this topic, see here.
Immanuel Kant was born in 1724 in Konigsberg, East Prussia. He was the son of a craftsman. His parents hoped he would study theology at the Collegium Fridericianum but Kant's interest was in classics, which he studied for eight years. In 1740, aged 16, Kant went to study philosophy at the University of Konigsberg. It is claimed that he never travelled more than a hundred miles from his home town. His family was deeply religious and his parents taught a literal translation of the bible which focused on humility. His education from his parents did not place much importance on subjects like science and maths.
He wrote on a wide range of topics from metaphysics and epistemology, religion, morals and ethics, rationality, perception politics and aesthetics. Some people state that Kant did not begin to produce important works until he was in his fifties, although this claim is refuted. What is widely accepted is that Kant was very influential both in his life time and to this day, especially in terms of philosophy and scientific study.
Kant's early work, published during the 1760s, generally consisted of criticisms of the works of Wolff, Leibniz, and Descartes. It was after1781-1790 when he had written his major works, that he was forbidden to publish further work on religious subjects, after he had raised the suspicion of the Prussian censor with his publication Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone (1794). It is said that Kant's critical and transcendental method transformed philosophy and that it is now the starting point for philosophers today. His work has influenced Hegel, Fichte, Schopenhauer, Rawls and Chomsky. (Rorty The Many Faces of Philosophy)
Before Kant, during the 17th and much of the 18th century, Western philosophy was divided between two opposing schools -- British empiricism (eg. Locke) and Continental rationalism (eg. Descartes). The main opposing issue being whether or not human beings can acquire important knowledge of reality by the use of our minds alone -- by thinking. The rationalists believed so, but the empiricists denied this, instead believing in experience being the source of knowledge. It was Kant's work that unified these two opposing schools. (Magee The Great Philosophers)
SECTION I
CONTAINING THE PRELIMINARY ARTICLES FOR PERPETUAL PEACE AMONG STATES
1. "No Treaty of Peace Shall Be Held Valid in Which There Is Tacitly Reserved Matter for a Future War";
• Treaties made with the intention restarting hostilities at a more opportune time in the future do not promote peace.
2. "No Independent States, Large or Small, Shall Come under the Dominion of Another State by Inheritance, Exchange, Purchase, or Donation"
• A state is not property which can be sold or incorporated into another state.
3. "Standing Armies Shall in Time Be Totally Abolished";
• Standing armies promote aggression and competition between states
• There is a difference between spending money to build an army during a time of peace and forming a volunteer army to defend against foreign aggression.
4. "National Debts Shall Not Be Contracted with a View to the External Friction of States";
• There should be no form of monetary credit between states
5. "No State Shall by Force Interfere with the Constitution or Government of Another State";
• So long as a state is not in civil war (with separate powers each laying claim to the state), a foreign power should not interfere
6. "No State Shall, during War, Permit Such Acts of Hostility Which Would Make Mutual Confidence in the Subsequent Peace Impossible: Such Are the Employment of Assassins, Poisoners, Breach of Capitulation, and Incitement to Treason in the Opposing State";
• These dishonourable strategies will only lead to a war of extermination
SECTION II
CONTAINING THE DEFINITIVE ARTICLES FOR PERPETUAL PEACE AMONG STATES
• The natural state between men is one of war (or at least the threat of war)
1. "The Civil Constitution of Every State Should Be Republican";
• This is the only constitution established on the freedom of equal citizens
2. "The Law of Nations Shall be Founded on a Federation of Free States";
• This ‘league of peace’ should seek to end all wars forever.
• The league maintains the security of the freedom of the states
3. "The Law of World Citizenship Shall Be Limited to Conditions of Universal Hospitality";
• Strangers should not be treated as enemies
• One is not obligated to receive a stranger, but it must be done peacefully
• The face of the earth belongs to all humans equally
• The human race should be working to establish a world citizenship
(Add, answer, and discuss study questions for this author and reading)
What does Kant mean by a "republican constitution," and how does it differ from a "democratic" constitution?
There are two ways of classifying a state. The first is the form of sovereignty. Democracy is the form of sovereign power exercised by the people. The second is the form of government which is the way the public's will is administered. Republicanism is the separation of executive power from legislative.
A Republican state is a civil constitution with separate legislative and executive powers. The legislative is a representative body with its members elected by the people This is not something that Kant says, but it seems to be ultimately implied; perhpas other mechanisms of representation are contemplated - xmarquez Sep 25, 2008. The executive power establishes the laws and the people are only subject to laws that they have given themselves.
Why does Kant insist that states must have a republican constitution if perpetual peace is to be possible?
Kant believes that if a republic had to decide whether or not to enter a war, its citizens would favour the "desired consequence" what does the "desired consequence" mean? - xmarquez Sep 25, 2008. Kant believes that a republic would favour peace as the desired consequence A republic by itself can't favor perpetual peace; it can favor peace, though, morre often than not - xmarquez Sep 25, 2008. This is because in a state with a republican constitution, the state's citizens have control over decisions (or at least legal freedom, with which to have their say)Not entirely; their representatives have control- xmarquez Sep 25, 2008 and their opinions would count towards the decision to go to war (or not). Kant assumes that it is likely that the citizens would decide not to go to war because: they would have to fight; they would use their country's resources; and, have to help rebuild afterward. A citizen, therefore, would think far more carefully about the merits of entering into a war as they would be personally involved. (Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch. First Definitive Article for Perpetual Peace.", Kant) The last part is good, the first part is a bit confusing - xmarquez Sep 25, 2008
How will this happen?
What does Kant mean by a "federation" of states? Why is a "federation" of states, and not a world state, required for world peace?
A federation of states is a group of states in alliance with each other. States in such an alliance are unlikely to go to war against each other. This is different to a world state because states are still individual, sovereign states. States do not want to be subject to a common system of law in a world state. They do not want to be under any authority other than their own. Kant does say that a world state would be good but realistically it is not going to happen; the best we can hope for is a growing federation of states.
Is the European Union similar to what Kant has in mind by a federation of states?
Kant believes that the best method to achieve an end to war is to take measures to pursue peace. Kant designs an article of peace to progress a nation towards the end state of peaceful coexistence Not sure these first two sentences are relevant - xmarquez Sep 25, 2008. A federation of states is similar to the European Union. The federation of states is a mechanism to pursue, through moral means, the end state of peace. The federation of state functions to a super state is so that the two can serve the same purpose, but one of them is much easier to attain there is also the threat to freedom that the world state would pose - xmarquez Sep 25, 2008. A federation will be easier to legitimately form, yet will produce a similar outcome of peace. The EU is approaching what Kant desires but has not yet reached its full potential. The EU is still not fully under one banner or one government Kant would not want it to be - a world state is a threat to freedom - xmarquez Sep 25, 2008. This diversity will hinder the continuation of peace but it is along the lines of Kant's thinking. The things below are not well integrated with the previous paragraph - xmarquez Sep 25, 2008
Kant writes that states can be compared to men. Like men states have to leave the state of nature (constant war between states) and seek peace and security by establishing a “constitution, for under such a constitution each can be secure in his right”. He thinks that this kind of constitution should be a “league of nation” (=a federation of states) and not a big state (“Völkerbund” not “Völkerstaat”). He explains that an agreement among states to reach perpetual peace could not work under a “Völkerstaat”, a big world state. For more practical reasons than moral reasons Kant thinks that it is preferable to have a league (“Bund”). A world state ("Völkerstaat"/"Weltrepublik") would set laws for all different states, but states don’t like to obey laws from a superior actor “each state places its majesty … in being subject to no external juridical restraint”.
He adds that “this league of states does not tend to any dominion over the power of the state but only to the maintenance and security of the freedom of the state itself and of other states in league with it, without there being any need for them to submit to civil laws and their compulsion, as men in a state of nature must submit.” He writes that the best way that leads state to perpetual peace is federation.
The EU is an interesting example of a federation of states. It is mostly a federation of Kantian character, although in some policy areas (e.g. monetary policy) it is a supranational agency who rules independently from the member states.
States who want to be a member agree to the binding rules of the federation (“Copenhagen Criteria”: democracy, respect for human rights, rule of law, market economy…) but still have their influence on the legislative and executive process. EU laws are not binding as long as the respective member state has not implemented it in its national law body. A state that violates the "Copenhagen Criteria" or shows other threats to peace and stability of the other members can be excluded from the EU, by unanimity vote from the other members (which never happened).
Overall the EU looks more like a federation than a supranational state.
The key motivation of creating the EU was the wish to ensure peace in Europe, after centuries of wars culminating in the devastating WWII. Politicians of Germany and France the former “hereditary enemies” were the first to design a kind of federation among European states to foster peace, security, economic and political stability in Europe.
What would have to occur on todays geopolitical scene before a Kantian federation becomes possible?
"No State Shall by Force Interfere with the Constitution or Government of Another State"; But it would be quite different if a state, by internal rebellion, should fall into two parts, each of which pretended to be a separate state making claim to the whole. To lend assistance to one of these cannot be considered an interference in the constitution of the other state (for it is then in a state of anarchy) . But so long as the internal dissension has not come to this critical point, such interference by foreign powers would infringe on the rights of an independent people struggling with its internal disease; hence it would itself be an offense and would render the autonomy of all states insecure.
It seems here that Kant is legitimising taking sides in internal struggle? Yes, but only on the side of freedom- xmarquez Sep 25, 2008
What interests me particularly is at what level things can be considered legitimate 'states' and federations. In the course of history smaller groups have amalgamated into larger, larger groups have conquered smaller, and so on to create the states and peoples we know today. Some could still be considered in the process of doing so. Using Germany as an example, in the 1700s it had around 1700 little autonomous princedoms, dukedom, kingdoms, and so on. By the Prussian conquest these all came together to be something more recognisable as 'Germany'. While states still exist now, and theoretically have the ability to act separately in some functions, it's not like there is (regular) talk of secession. The next example might be India where much of the region now see themselves as 'Indians' rather than having allegiances to the various small states the British dismantled. However it still divides along ethnic and religious lines. Germany with the dubious concept of a 'common ethnicity' perhaps came together easier. Federations of states, or even though federated by conquest eventually seem to merged into superstates loosing their differences.
However in Japan which is supposedly one of the most Homogenous peoples still has distinct ethic groups such as the Bukaru or Ainu who are discriminated against. It also seems as though Kant could consider many nations today as illegitimate 'federations'. Any country with sucessionists (Georgia-Ossetia, Russia-Chechnya China-Tibet-Uyghurstan etc) or even New Zealand-Maori or Australia-Aboriginees is a state created by conquest. It seems as though before anything Kant has in mind could take place the world might need to dissintegrate along Ethnic or nationalist lines, or at least reach settlements. On the other hand, they could merge together over time. It seems a little difficult to have eternal peace between federations of states if within the states themselves have large disgruntled groups that don't consider themselves a part of it. I don't think Kant would recommend any sort of separation; the imperative of peace would trump any such thing. All that he is saying is that given existing configurations of states, where peoples are normally separated by language and culture, it is best to respect their autonomy as peoples (a good principle even within states) - xmarquez Sep 25, 2008
Why does Kant insist that espionage is incompatible with perpetual peace? Is Kant right about this?
Espionage, says Kant, encourages infamy even when there is peace and therefore it undermines peace itself.
Kant believes that the manipulation or coercion of a controlled human source should be condemned. Kant's deontological approach means that many methods of collection used for espionage would be considered ethically unacceptable and could not be condoned by any 'end justifies the means' argument. Kant’s obvious peeve for espionage is evident when he refers to it as ‘intrinsically despicable’ since it ‘exploits only the dishonesty of others’. This peace by dishonesty It's war by dishonesty that is being discussed by Kant - xmarquez Sep 25, 2008 undermines what peace really is. But why does espionage make future war more likely? Is he right about this? - xmarquez Sep 25, 2008
In his project of perpetual peace, there are six preliminary conditions:
The refusal of secret clauses in peace treaties
The refusal to consider a State, small or big as a heritage: no exchange, no purchases
The progressive abolition of the permanent armies
The not intervention in the internal affairs of a State
The ban for any State to contract debts to prepare conflicts to come
The banning of acts of hostilities not acts of hostilities in general, only certain kind - xmarquez in a State of war: no murder, poisoning or espionage
Kant makes a point in the last one because this kind of behavior in State of War only encourages to more war and revenge.Yes, that's what he thinks, but is that true? - xmarquez Sep 25, 2008 Also espionage is related to intervene in domestic affairs of a country so that is another point against perpetual peace.Thus espionage is something secret, something that neither your allies know you are doing that, for this third reason Kant disqualifies espionage.Not sure I understand this last reason - xmarquez Sep 25, 2008
Are there any other practices out there (not necessarily mentioned by Kant) that might be incompatible with perpetual peace and hence should be prohibited immediately?
There are many practices that lay the seeds of future wars, most frequently these practices are used to destabilize nation building by extending the control over a region that would otherwise be autonomous. These insidious policies have been used in many states that have large areas that seek/desire autonomy.
A modern day example (one among many) of practices that are/(were) incompatible with peace was the treatment of the Kurdish region under Saddam:
There were two levels of abuse that destabilized the Kurdish region in the Iraqi state.
The first practice occurred in March 1988 when Saddam released biological weapons on the city of Halabja and reportedly twenty other such northern targets. The estimates casualties range from several hundred to at least seven thousand; this figure does not tell the whole story. The gas that was used, still unknown, is widely accepted to have been used for two purposes: the first was to instill terror in the population; the second purpose was to leave those still left alive impotent, unable to continue on their culture.
The second practice was a policy of Arabization or ‘nationality correction’ of the Kirkuk region and other northern cities. This practice entailed a mass resettlement of Shi’ite and Sunni Arabs into Kurdish territory making a secessionist movement very difficult.
These kinds of practices are continually seen across the world, form former Kosovo to the Sudan. Policies like these are the types of policies that need to be stopped if perpetual peace is to occur.
Anything that does not engender a good faith relationship could be deemed as averse to future peace.
Economic sanctions that aim to incense a population or deny innocent civilians of necessary goods (USA vs Cuba) or the broadcasting of propaganda aimed at the population of one or both states. Overt Military manoeuvres, strategic alliances could jeopardize the concept of perpetual peace. The Turkish denial of the Armenian Holocaust/ Japanese textbooks version of Manchurian Occupation.
Why does Kant suggest that the principles or maxims regulating interstate conduct must be able to be made "public"?
Kant argues that a state should publicly announce motivations and proposed actions. States are always aware of the intentions of other states. Yes, but he gives some reasons. Why is this the case? - xmarquez Sep 25, 2008
“All maxims which require publicity if they are not to fail in their purpose can be reconciled both with right and with politics.”
This applies to relations among states with the goal of maintaining peace.
What does this "requirement of publicity" mean exactly?
Why does Kant say that revolution is incompatible with the maxim of publicity? Is he right about a) this incompatibility and b) the implication that there cannot be a right of revolution?
Is the maxim of publicity a useful test of the morality of political action?
Why does Kant think that perpetual peace is possible even if men are not naturally good?
Kant believes that perpetual peace is more-or-less inevitable because it is "nature" (or destiny)What does this mean? - xmarquez Sep 25, 2008. He believes that while humans resist "...her [nature's] aim... to produce harmony among men...", perpetual peace is part of a "higher cause" which will eventually be fulfilled no matter how aggressively humans try to fight against it. Kant goes on to state that this idea of harmony must be accepted by humans to be achieved. He writes: "We can and must supply it from our own minds in order to conceive of it possibility...". Therefore, even if humans are not naturally good nature will lead us towards perpetual peace as it is "destiny". (Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch. First Supplement, "Of the Guarantee for Perpetual Peace.", Kant.)
Why should we have confidence that there is moral progress?
Kant proposed three reasons why we can be fairly assured that peace is guaranteed. All three work on the premise that because of self-interest, people and states, would eventually produce the right environment for peace. The first situation he described was of the internal political regime of a state. Kant reasoned each individual worked to advance themselves and other people were aware of this. In Kant's words "...selfish inclinations are naturally opposed to each other...". Therefore the only way for people to coexist would be to establish a "...condition of peace within which laws can be enforced." So in this fashion a political constitution beneficial to everyone would evolve. The second situation concerns international states and follows a similar vein. States exist in a system of anarchy because of two things; religious and language differences. It is these cultural differences that lead nations to separate themselves from each other. An understanding of these differences leads to peace. Because each country will seek to preserve its cultural identity there will be competition, but as long as humans recognize each nation's right to their customs and traditions peace will come. The third reason follows on from the second. As nations trade with one another to advance themselves it will become increasingly disadvantageous for them to engage in warfare for commerce and war are not compatible.
Explain Kant's notion of a federation of republican states and the three types of law that would be embodied in this federation. (Taken from pols/phil 2005 exam)
Bohman, James and Matthias Lutz-Bachman (eds). 1997. Perpetual peace: Essays on Kant's cosmopolitan ideal. Cambridge: MIT Press. Library catalog.
Covell, Charles. 1998. Kant and the law of peace: A study in the philosophy of international law and international relations. New York, St. Martin's Press. Library catalog.
Nichols, Mary P. 1986. Kant's Teaching of Historical Progress & Its Cosmopolitan Goal. Polity, Vol. 19, No. 2., pp. 194-212. Link.
Abstract: Kant taught men to transcend their individual or parochial perspectives and look at themselves as cosmopolitans. He proposed a condition of perpetual peace, achieved through history, as an alternative to the state of nature which Rousseau thought impossible to recover. Cosmopolitanism is necessary for perpetual peace. Professor Nichols notes that Kant is nevertheless aware of the limits human nature imposes on cosmopolitanism. She goes on to argue that his teaching leads men to seek a world order that may be neither possible nor desirable.
Dadrian, Vahakn N. "Kant's Concepts of 'Human Nature' and 'Rationality': Two Arch Determinants of an Envisioned 'Eternal Peace'" Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 5, No. 4., pp. 396-401. Link.
Huntley, Wade L. 1996. "Kant's Third Image: Systemic Sources of the Liberal Peace." International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 1., pp. 45-76. Link.
Abstract: Much recent scholarship has focused upon the apparent absence of war among liberal democratic states-the liberal peace. To help explain the phenomenon, many refer to the political writings of Immanuel Kant, and the central role he envisioned for the liberal republic as the foundation for "perpetual peace." Against this view, "neorealists" contend that Kant, and modern inter-preters, overlook the important and unremitting force of anarchy among states. For neorealists, no peace dependent on only the internal pacific disposition of liberal republics can endure. Supporters of the Kantian interpretation respond that properly constituted republics can, in fact, overcome the anarchy among them, and that the present liberal peace therefore challenges the adequacy of "systemic" theories of international politics. This article argues that to view the significance of the liberal peace as a test of opposing "levels of analysis" misses deeper issues. Kant's thought itself contains an indispensable systemic or "third image" dimension, identifying anarchy and conflict as key sources of progress away from the state of war among states. This perspective suggests that the core questions raised by the liberal peace phenomenon concern not only the importance of anarchy among states, but also the long-run effects of anarchy on the nature of states and the consequences of their interactions. As an initial exploration of this argument, the article concludes with some preliminary comparative applications of neorealist and Kantian hypotheses regarding contemporary and future trends in world politics.
Georg Hegel was born in 1770, early enough to witness the French and American revolutions, and died in 1831, late enough to witness the begining of the Industrial Revolution. It was these events that all his life he aimed to comprehend -- to understand the many changes European states and afar were facing. His work has been described as the first philosophy to make modernity the subject.
Hegel's work is often linked with that of Karl Marx -- Marx having claimed that he transformed Hegel's idealist philosophy into materialist theory.
(Hegel: A Biography, Terry Pinkard 2001)
(Add, answer, and discuss study questions for this author and reading)
What does Hegel mean by saying that relations between states are relations of "obligation"?
Why are states sovereign, according to Hegel?
States are evolved What does "evolved" mean here? - xmarquez Oct 5, 2008 entities. They grow out of civil society to give separated individuals a collective purpose and identity. The state gives otherwise independent individuals, a common and shared belief system with similar values and social norms. The state forms a background to the cultural foundations of the society and cements a feeling of belonging for the people. The nation-state is the ultimate expression of a cultural identity, or as Hegel would put it; '...a manifestation of spirit...'. Because each state evolves within its own unique environment and in a special way, each state is an evolution of its own particular 'spirit'. Therefore states are sovereign because each is the highest form of cultural identity of itselfNot quite - Hegel actually says something about why states are sovereign in the paragraphs on "International Law" of the Philosophy of Right, having to do with recognition- xmarquez Oct 5, 2008. States are sovereign because the laws within them grow out of the customs and traditions of the culture of the people resident in the society.Not quite - xmarquez Oct 5, 2008
Why is the fact that states have obligations to one another not incompatible with their sovereignty?
What does Hegel mean by saying that sovereignty depends on recognition?
In order for a prospective nation-state to attain the status of being a sovereign state in its own right, it needs to be recognized by other states. This process of recognition is essentially saying 'we accept your existence as an independent, legitimate, self governing, body of people'. This process provides an awareness that the nation-state is different from, and separate from, other states. The self-awareness that arises gives the people of the state a reason to say 'we are not like other states' and leads to a national identity. This is to say that the people of a nation-state are a whole entity in themselves, not just a part of some other group. Sovereignty requires recognition of the independence of the state's culture and therefore legitimizes the culture's laws and right to rule itself. Recognition removes the claim of other outside nations to rule that people.
What are Hegel's criticisms of Kant's proposal for a perpetual peace?
Hegel agrees with the idea that war catalyzes the development of humanity and offers a critique of Kant’s aspirations of perpetual peace. According to Hegel war is an inevitable byproduct of statehood and will always exist. Hegel argues that war serves to revitalise and renew the state. Hegel believed that if perpetual peace were to be accomplished it would only lead to the state becoming “rigid and ossified” leading to its unfortunate death. Also, Hegel disagrees with Kant and states that “the state is an individual, and negation is an essential component of individuality. Therefore, even if a number of states were to join together as a family, this league, in its individuality, must generate opposition and create an enemy”. How plausible is Hegel's view? - xmarquez Oct 5, 2008
Does Hegel think war between states is inevitable? Why?
Hegel thinks that war is inevitable between states because: the state is the terminal phase, it is the synthesis of previous both phases (the family and the society): the ethical realm This is not clear. Why is its being the terminal phase mean that war is inevitable? - xmarquez Oct 5, 2008. Every member of the state adopts the same moral behavior (conservation of the political community, feeling of membership in the political community). So the people who live in the state love it like a family and they are ready to die for it They do not love it like a family, but at any rate why does the fact that they are ready to die for it show that war is inevitable? - xmarquez Oct 5, 2008.
Hegel talks about the state’s sovereignty with an outside regard Unclear - xmarquez Oct 5, 2008. Three ideas stimulate his reflection: For Hegel, the state’s independence takes root in a conception of individuality. There is no possible overtaking the state: the state is the only recognized political structure ? - xmarquez Oct 5, 2008. So, there is no universal politics. War is the standard in International Relations. War is even necessary for the health of peoples (field of morality).Unclear - xmarquez Oct 5, 2008 War contributes to moral health. The international structure consisted of sovereign States (there are no superior entity beyond states). States become aware of them same as by the confrontation. The identity of the states crosses by negation of the other entities. This whole paragraph is a bit choppy and unclear, though the basic points it makes seem to be right - xmarquez Oct 5, 2008
Does Hegel believe that war is always negative? Or does he think that war can be positive?
Hegel criticized peace. A too long peace is a source of passivity, apathy. There is a morbidity of peace. Peace softens and does not arouse any more the movement of life. Hegel uses the metaphor of the decay; stagnant waters are convenient to decay Quotation? - xmarquez Oct 5, 2008. People without war do not have an authentic life. For Hegel, we become aware of the exceptional character of life when we are going to lose it. War is bound to life but peace is bound to death. There is an admiration of war not a glorification of it Expand - xmarquez Oct 5, 2008.
Hegel agrees with Kant about war What exactly does he agree with Kant about war? - xmarquez Oct 5, 2008. But he disagrees with the project of a perpetual peace. For Hegel war make advances countries, it is the guile of the history. According to Hegel, this peace is neither desirable, nor practicable. To want this peace it is to remove the vital dimension of the human being. The fear of dying during a conflict is what makes the peoples live. For Hegel, the peace idea of Kant addresses more the individual of the society than the individual of the State.
Hegel states that the "welfare" of the state is its "supreme law ... in its relations with others" (Section 336). Does that mean that anything is justified in its relations with other states?
How ought war to be waged, according to Hegel? Does Hegel differ from Kant in this respect?
What role does the "world spirit" play in Hegel's theory of international relations?
Is the idea of a "world spirit" plausible? What reason might Hegel give us for this idea?
What are the different forms of community according to Hegel?
According to Hegel, there are three forms of community. They are the family, the civil society and the state. The family is the “realm of unconditional love”. An association with this form of community is unconditional, that is, there are no criteria to be a part of a family. A civil society is the “realm of self-interested individual conditions”. There is freedom and individuality but there is not necessarily a connection between these two ideas. People in a civil society have rights and the individuality exists by acknowledging conflict between people. A state is the “ethical realm”. It consists of individuals preserving cultural identity. This identity is formed through the establishment of laws.
Avineri, Shlomo. 1962. "Hegel and Nationalism." The Review of Politics, Vol. 24, No. 4., pp. 461-484. Link.
Mertens, Thomas. 1995. "Hegel's Homage to Kant's Perpetual Peace: An Analysis of Hegel's "Philosophy of Right" §§ 321-340." The Review of Politics, Vol. 57, No. 4., pp. 665-691. Link.
Abstract: At a few places in his "Philosophy of Right" Hegel directly addresses the discussion with his famous predecessor Immanuel Kant. These places indicate very clearly the distinction between the two philosophical standpoints. This article focuses on Hegel's criticism of Kant's views on peace and international law. For two reasons however, it starts with Hegel's rejection of Kant's moral point of view. First, this criticism is presupposed in Hegel's rejection of Kant's view on politics. Second, at least a partial return to Kantian morality is implied in Hegel's statement that war, although not to be condemned categorically, must be limited both quantitatively and qualitatively.
Smith, Steven B. "Hegel's Views on War, the State, and International Relations." The American Political Science Review, Vol. 77, No. 3., pp. 624-632. Link.
Abstract: In this article I argue a thesis about Hegel's views on war different from most previous interpreters, e.g., Popper and Hook on the one side and Avineri and Pelczynski on the other. In particular I argue that his reflections on war are an attempt to answer the problem of political obligation or the question of why should anyone willingly die for the state. Accordingly, I examine briefly Hegel's critique of Kantian morality for its inability to account for political obligation proper and although ultimately I conclude that Hegel never completely extricated himself from Kant's belief in a providentialist historicism leading to a condition of "'perpetual peace,'" I still want to suggest that war remains for Hegel an essential moment in the "'ethical'" life of the state and perhaps the chief means whereby the dignity and autonomy of the state can be exerted over the network of private interests that constitutes civil society.
Place some background information about Marx and his time here. Write things that may be helpful for understanding his thought. Please do not cut and paste from other websites, and make sure you acknowledge your sources (with links).
(Add, answer, and discuss study questions for this author and reading)
What is the relationship between Bourgeois and Proletarians?
Bourgeois are the social class which obtains income from ownership in capital assets, or from commercial activities. They are the ones who have the Proletarian class of people working for them and in turn profit form their labour without doing much if any work.
Put simply, the Bourgeois are the owners and controllers of capital. Part of that capital is labour which is provided by the Proletariat or working class. As such, the Bourgeois are reliant on the Proletariat and as industry grows so does the power base of the Proletariat.
The proletariat are tools and slaves of the bourgeoisie Is this a quote? Aside from rhetoric, Marx did not think the proletarians were the slaves of the bourgeoisie - xmarquez Oct 5, 2008.
What is the relationship between Communists and Proletarians?
The Communists seek to bridge the gap between the Bourgeois and Proletarians whereby the Proletarians will gain political control and thus will become the general class of the nation. This may be implemented through a revolution or merely by political change but the idea seems to suggest a redistribution of power and wealth.
What is the effect of capitalism on national borders and cultures?
Capitalism has the impact of reducing the importance of borders and cultures through the homogenising impact of trade. Capitalists however may play on nationalistic sentiments when it is useful to do so.
What characterises a communist society according to Marx?
A communist society according to Marx is one where the power within the nation is shifted to the dictator and to the working class. No, this is just a transitional stage - xmarquez Oct 5, 2008
Is a revolution necessary to obtain a communist society; is this inevitable; is it permanent?
Marx accepts that revolution is necessary in the short term, this would ideally follow a huge market collapse or similar breakdown in the capitalist system. During this time of revolution, some despotic measures can be justifiable, but only to aid in the transition.
The idea that a proletarian revolution is needed is a cornerstone of Marx's theory on communism; Marxists believe that the workers of the world must unite and free themselves from capitalist oppression to create a world run by and for the working class. Thus, in the Marxist view, proletarian revolutions need to happen in countries all over the world. When the revolution occurred some totalitarian governance was justified in a transitional phase only but was never meant to last. Once such a global revolution had occurred, and the transitional phase had passed then the revolution had ended, therefore it was never meant to be a permanent institution.
Compare and contrast Hegel and Marx's view of history. Where does history lead, according to Hegel? Where does it lead according to Marx? What are the mechanisms of history?
Marxists.org, a large online collection of Marx and Engel's writings (in English and German) as well as the writings of other important marxists and important predecessors (like Hegel).
Elster, Jon. 1986. An Introduction to Karl Marx. Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge University Press. Library catalog.
A sympathetic, though sometimes highly critical, introduction to Marx's thought. It tries to distinguish between "what is living and what is dead" in Marx's thought.
Table of Contents
Schedule
- Kant, Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch (also found in pp. 428-455 in Brown et al).
- ‘The Enlightenment’, pp. 387-393 in Brown et al.
- Fifth essay opportunity: Democracy and Intervention topics.
Friday 26 September- Hegel, The Philosophy of Right, III.iii.a.i-III.iii.c (paragraphs 272-360, especially 321-360).
- ‘State and nation in nineteenth-century international political theory’, pp. 457-467 in Brown et al.
Wednesday 1 October- Marx and Engels, Communist Manifesto, entire.
Friday 3 OctoberEssay Topics
For this theme, you have a choice among the following essay topics:
General considerations
Kant
Table of Contents
Background
He wrote on a wide range of topics from metaphysics and epistemology, religion, morals and ethics, rationality, perception politics and aesthetics. Some people state that Kant did not begin to produce important works until he was in his fifties, although this claim is refuted. What is widely accepted is that Kant was very influential both in his life time and to this day, especially in terms of philosophy and scientific study.
Immanuel Kant died in 1804.
Immanuel Kant in Encyclopedia Britannica
Kant's early work, published during the 1760s, generally consisted of criticisms of the works of Wolff, Leibniz, and Descartes. It was after1781-1790 when he had written his major works, that he was forbidden to publish further work on religious subjects, after he had raised the suspicion of the Prussian censor with his publication Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone (1794). It is said that Kant's critical and transcendental method transformed philosophy and that it is now the starting point for philosophers today. His work has influenced Hegel, Fichte, Schopenhauer, Rawls and Chomsky. (Rorty The Many Faces of Philosophy)
Before Kant, during the 17th and much of the 18th century, Western philosophy was divided between two opposing schools -- British empiricism (eg. Locke) and Continental rationalism (eg. Descartes). The main opposing issue being whether or not human beings can acquire important knowledge of reality by the use of our minds alone -- by thinking. The rationalists believed so, but the empiricists denied this, instead believing in experience being the source of knowledge. It was Kant's work that unified these two opposing schools. (Magee The Great Philosophers)
Readings
Summary
SECTION I
CONTAINING THE PRELIMINARY ARTICLES FOR PERPETUAL PEACE AMONG STATES
1. "No Treaty of Peace Shall Be Held Valid in Which There Is Tacitly Reserved Matter for a Future War";
• Treaties made with the intention restarting hostilities at a more opportune time in the future do not promote peace.
2. "No Independent States, Large or Small, Shall Come under the Dominion of Another State by Inheritance, Exchange, Purchase, or Donation"
• A state is not property which can be sold or incorporated into another state.
3. "Standing Armies Shall in Time Be Totally Abolished";
• Standing armies promote aggression and competition between states
• There is a difference between spending money to build an army during a time of peace and forming a volunteer army to defend against foreign aggression.
4. "National Debts Shall Not Be Contracted with a View to the External Friction of States";
• There should be no form of monetary credit between states
5. "No State Shall by Force Interfere with the Constitution or Government of Another State";
• So long as a state is not in civil war (with separate powers each laying claim to the state), a foreign power should not interfere
6. "No State Shall, during War, Permit Such Acts of Hostility Which Would Make Mutual Confidence in the Subsequent Peace Impossible: Such Are the Employment of Assassins, Poisoners, Breach of Capitulation, and Incitement to Treason in the Opposing State";
• These dishonourable strategies will only lead to a war of extermination
SECTION II
CONTAINING THE DEFINITIVE ARTICLES FOR PERPETUAL PEACE AMONG STATES
• The natural state between men is one of war (or at least the threat of war)
1. "The Civil Constitution of Every State Should Be Republican";
• This is the only constitution established on the freedom of equal citizens
2. "The Law of Nations Shall be Founded on a Federation of Free States";
• This ‘league of peace’ should seek to end all wars forever.
• The league maintains the security of the freedom of the states
3. "The Law of World Citizenship Shall Be Limited to Conditions of Universal Hospitality";
• Strangers should not be treated as enemies
• One is not obligated to receive a stranger, but it must be done peacefully
• The face of the earth belongs to all humans equally
• The human race should be working to establish a world citizenship
Study Questions
- What does Kant mean by a "republican constitution," and how does it differ from a "democratic" constitution?
There are two ways of classifying a state. The first is the form of sovereignty. Democracy is the form of sovereign power exercised by the people. The second is the form of government which is the way the public's will is administered. Republicanism is the separation of executive power from legislative.A Republican state is a civil constitution with separate legislative and executive powers. The legislative is a representative body with its members elected by the people This is not something that Kant says, but it seems to be ultimately implied; perhpas other mechanisms of representation are contemplated -
- Why does Kant insist that states must have a republican constitution if perpetual peace is to be possible?
Kant believes that if a republic had to decide whether or not to enter a war, its citizens would favour the "desired consequence" what does the "desired consequence" mean? -- How will this happen?
- What does Kant mean by a "federation" of states? Why is a "federation" of states, and not a world state, required for world peace?
A federation of states is a group of states in alliance with each other. States in such an alliance are unlikely to go to war against each other. This is different to a world state because states are still individual, sovereign states. States do not want to be subject to a common system of law in a world state. They do not want to be under any authority other than their own. Kant does say that a world state would be good but realistically it is not going to happen; the best we can hope for is a growing federation of states.- Is the European Union similar to what Kant has in mind by a federation of states?
Kant believes that the best method to achieve an end to war is to take measures to pursue peace. Kant designs an article of peace to progress a nation towards the end state of peaceful coexistence Not sure these first two sentences are relevant -The things below are not well integrated with the previous paragraph -
Kant writes that states can be compared to men. Like men states have to leave the state of nature (constant war between states) and seek peace and security by establishing a “constitution, for under such a constitution each can be secure in his right”. He thinks that this kind of constitution should be a “league of nation” (=a federation of states) and not a big state (“Völkerbund” not “Völkerstaat”). He explains that an agreement among states to reach perpetual peace could not work under a “Völkerstaat”, a big world state. For more practical reasons than moral reasons Kant thinks that it is preferable to have a league (“Bund”). A world state ("Völkerstaat"/"Weltrepublik") would set laws for all different states, but states don’t like to obey laws from a superior actor “each state places its majesty … in being subject to no external juridical restraint”.
He adds that “this league of states does not tend to any dominion over the power of the state but only to the maintenance and security of the freedom of the state itself and of other states in league with it, without there being any need for them to submit to civil laws and their compulsion, as men in a state of nature must submit.” He writes that the best way that leads state to perpetual peace is federation.
The EU is an interesting example of a federation of states. It is mostly a federation of Kantian character, although in some policy areas (e.g. monetary policy) it is a supranational agency who rules independently from the member states.
States who want to be a member agree to the binding rules of the federation (“Copenhagen Criteria”: democracy, respect for human rights, rule of law, market economy…) but still have their influence on the legislative and executive process. EU laws are not binding as long as the respective member state has not implemented it in its national law body. A state that violates the "Copenhagen Criteria" or shows other threats to peace and stability of the other members can be excluded from the EU, by unanimity vote from the other members (which never happened).
Overall the EU looks more like a federation than a supranational state.
The key motivation of creating the EU was the wish to ensure peace in Europe, after centuries of wars culminating in the devastating WWII. Politicians of Germany and France the former “hereditary enemies” were the first to design a kind of federation among European states to foster peace, security, economic and political stability in Europe.
"No State Shall by Force Interfere with the Constitution or Government of Another State";
But it would be quite different if a state, by internal rebellion, should fall into two parts, each of which pretended to be a separate state making claim to the whole. To lend assistance to one of these cannot be considered an interference in the constitution of the other state (for it is then in a state of anarchy) . But so long as the internal dissension has not come to this critical point, such interference by foreign powers would infringe on the rights of an independent people struggling with its internal disease; hence it would itself be an offense and would render the autonomy of all states insecure.
It seems here that Kant is legitimising taking sides in internal struggle? Yes, but only on the side of freedom-
What interests me particularly is at what level things can be considered legitimate 'states' and federations. In the course of history smaller groups have amalgamated into larger, larger groups have conquered smaller, and so on to create the states and peoples we know today. Some could still be considered in the process of doing so. Using Germany as an example, in the 1700s it had around 1700 little autonomous princedoms, dukedom, kingdoms, and so on. By the Prussian conquest these all came together to be something more recognisable as 'Germany'. While states still exist now, and theoretically have the ability to act separately in some functions, it's not like there is (regular) talk of secession. The next example might be India where much of the region now see themselves as 'Indians' rather than having allegiances to the various small states the British dismantled. However it still divides along ethnic and religious lines. Germany with the dubious concept of a 'common ethnicity' perhaps came together easier. Federations of states, or even though federated by conquest eventually seem to merged into superstates loosing their differences.
However in Japan which is supposedly one of the most Homogenous peoples still has distinct ethic groups such as the Bukaru or Ainu who are discriminated against. It also seems as though Kant could consider many nations today as illegitimate 'federations'. Any country with sucessionists (Georgia-Ossetia, Russia-Chechnya China-Tibet-Uyghurstan etc) or even New Zealand-Maori or Australia-Aboriginees is a state created by conquest. It seems as though before anything Kant has in mind could take place the world might need to dissintegrate along Ethnic or nationalist lines, or at least reach settlements. On the other hand, they could merge together over time. It seems a little difficult to have eternal peace between federations of states if within the states themselves have large disgruntled groups that don't consider themselves a part of it.
I don't think Kant would recommend any sort of separation; the imperative of peace would trump any such thing. All that he is saying is that given existing configurations of states, where peoples are normally separated by language and culture, it is best to respect their autonomy as peoples (a good principle even within states) -
- Why does Kant insist that espionage is incompatible with perpetual peace? Is Kant right about this?
Espionage, says Kant, encourages infamy even when there is peace and therefore it undermines peace itself.Kant believes that the manipulation or coercion of a controlled human source should be condemned. Kant's deontological approach means that many methods of collection used for espionage would be considered ethically unacceptable and could not be condoned by any 'end justifies the means' argument. Kant’s obvious peeve for espionage is evident when he refers to it as ‘intrinsically despicable’ since it ‘exploits only the dishonesty of others’. This peace by dishonesty It's war by dishonesty that is being discussed by Kant -
In his project of perpetual peace, there are six preliminary conditions:
Kant makes a point in the last one because this kind of behavior in State of War only encourages to more war and revenge.Yes, that's what he thinks, but is that true? -
- Are there any other practices out there (not necessarily mentioned by Kant) that might be incompatible with perpetual peace and hence should be prohibited immediately?
There are many practices that lay the seeds of future wars, most frequently these practices are used to destabilize nation building by extending the control over a region that would otherwise be autonomous. These insidious policies have been used in many states that have large areas that seek/desire autonomy.A modern day example (one among many) of practices that are/(were) incompatible with peace was the treatment of the Kurdish region under Saddam:
There were two levels of abuse that destabilized the Kurdish region in the Iraqi state.
These kinds of practices are continually seen across the world, form former Kosovo to the Sudan. Policies like these are the types of policies that need to be stopped if perpetual peace is to occur.
Anything that does not engender a good faith relationship could be deemed as averse to future peace.
Economic sanctions that aim to incense a population or deny innocent civilians of necessary goods (USA vs Cuba) or the broadcasting of propaganda aimed at the population of one or both states. Overt Military manoeuvres, strategic alliances could jeopardize the concept of perpetual peace. The Turkish denial of the Armenian Holocaust/ Japanese textbooks version of Manchurian Occupation.
- Why does Kant suggest that the principles or maxims regulating interstate conduct must be able to be made "public"?
Kant argues that a state should publicly announce motivations and proposed actions. States are always aware of the intentions of other states. Yes, but he gives some reasons. Why is this the case? -This applies to relations among states with the goal of maintaining peace.
- What does this "requirement of publicity" mean exactly?
- Why does Kant say that revolution is incompatible with the maxim of publicity? Is he right about a) this incompatibility and b) the implication that there cannot be a right of revolution?
- Is the maxim of publicity a useful test of the morality of political action?
- Why does Kant think that perpetual peace is possible even if men are not naturally good?
Kant believes that perpetual peace is more-or-less inevitable because it is "nature" (or destiny) What does this mean? -- Why should we have confidence that there is moral progress?
Kant proposed three reasons why we can be fairly assured that peace is guaranteed. All three work on the premise that because of self-interest, people and states, would eventually produce the right environment for peace. The first situation he described was of the internal political regime of a state. Kant reasoned each individual worked to advance themselves and other people were aware of this. In Kant's words "...selfish inclinations are naturally opposed to each other...". Therefore the only way for people to coexist would be to establish a "...condition of peace within which laws can be enforced." So in this fashion a political constitution beneficial to everyone would evolve. The second situation concerns international states and follows a similar vein. States exist in a system of anarchy because of two things; religious and language differences. It is these cultural differences that lead nations to separate themselves from each other. An understanding of these differences leads to peace. Because each country will seek to preserve its cultural identity there will be competition, but as long as humans recognize each nation's right to their customs and traditions peace will come. The third reason follows on from the second. As nations trade with one another to advance themselves it will become increasingly disadvantageous for them to engage in warfare for commerce and war are not compatible.Lecture Notes
External Resources
Selected Bibliography
- Bohman, James and Matthias Lutz-Bachman (eds). 1997. Perpetual peace: Essays on Kant's cosmopolitan ideal. Cambridge: MIT Press. Library catalog.
- Covell, Charles. 1998. Kant and the law of peace: A study in the philosophy of international law and international relations. New York, St. Martin's Press. Library catalog.
- Nichols, Mary P. 1986. Kant's Teaching of Historical Progress & Its Cosmopolitan Goal. Polity, Vol. 19, No. 2., pp. 194-212. Link.
Abstract: Kant taught men to transcend their individual or parochial perspectives and look at themselves as cosmopolitans. He proposed a condition of perpetual peace, achieved through history, as an alternative to the state of nature which Rousseau thought impossible to recover. Cosmopolitanism is necessary for perpetual peace. Professor Nichols notes that Kant is nevertheless aware of the limits human nature imposes on cosmopolitanism. She goes on to argue that his teaching leads men to seek a world order that may be neither possible nor desirable.- Dadrian, Vahakn N. "Kant's Concepts of 'Human Nature' and 'Rationality': Two Arch Determinants of an Envisioned 'Eternal Peace'" Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 5, No. 4., pp. 396-401. Link.
- Huntley, Wade L. 1996. "Kant's Third Image: Systemic Sources of the Liberal Peace." International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 1., pp. 45-76. Link.
Abstract: Much recent scholarship has focused upon the apparent absence of war among liberal democratic states-the liberal peace. To help explain the phenomenon, many refer to the political writings of Immanuel Kant, and the central role he envisioned for the liberal republic as the foundation for "perpetual peace." Against this view, "neorealists" contend that Kant, and modern inter-preters, overlook the important and unremitting force of anarchy among states. For neorealists, no peace dependent on only the internal pacific disposition of liberal republics can endure. Supporters of the Kantian interpretation respond that properly constituted republics can, in fact, overcome the anarchy among them, and that the present liberal peace therefore challenges the adequacy of "systemic" theories of international politics. This article argues that to view the significance of the liberal peace as a test of opposing "levels of analysis" misses deeper issues. Kant's thought itself contains an indispensable systemic or "third image" dimension, identifying anarchy and conflict as key sources of progress away from the state of war among states. This perspective suggests that the core questions raised by the liberal peace phenomenon concern not only the importance of anarchy among states, but also the long-run effects of anarchy on the nature of states and the consequences of their interactions. As an initial exploration of this argument, the article concludes with some preliminary comparative applications of neorealist and Kantian hypotheses regarding contemporary and future trends in world politics.Hegel
Table of Contents
Background
Hegel's work is often linked with that of Karl Marx -- Marx having claimed that he transformed Hegel's idealist philosophy into materialist theory.
(Hegel: A Biography, Terry Pinkard 2001)
Readings
Summary
Study Questions
- Why are states sovereign, according to Hegel?
States are evolved What does "evolved" mean here? -- Why is the fact that states have obligations to one another not incompatible with their sovereignty?
- What does Hegel mean by saying that sovereignty depends on recognition?
In order for a prospective nation-state to attain the status of being a sovereign state in its own right, it needs to be recognized by other states. This process of recognition is essentially saying 'we accept your existence as an independent, legitimate, self governing, body of people'. This process provides an awareness that the nation-state is different from, and separate from, other states. The self-awareness that arises gives the people of the state a reason to say 'we are not like other states' and leads to a national identity. This is to say that the people of a nation-state are a whole entity in themselves, not just a part of some other group. Sovereignty requires recognition of the independence of the state's culture and therefore legitimizes the culture's laws and right to rule itself. Recognition removes the claim of other outside nations to rule that people.- What are Hegel's criticisms of Kant's proposal for a perpetual peace?
Hegel agrees with the idea that war catalyzes the development of humanity and offers a critique of Kant’s aspirations of perpetual peace. According to Hegel war is an inevitable byproduct of statehood and will always exist. Hegel argues that war serves to revitalise and renew the state. Hegel believed that if perpetual peace were to be accomplished it would only lead to the state becoming “rigid and ossified” leading to its unfortunate death. Also, Hegel disagrees with Kant and states that “the state is an individual, and negation is an essential component of individuality. Therefore, even if a number of states were to join together as a family, this league, in its individuality, must generate opposition and create an enemy”. How plausible is Hegel's view? -- Does Hegel think war between states is inevitable? Why?
Hegel thinks that war is inevitable between states because: the state is the terminal phase, it is the synthesis of previous both phases (the family and the society): the ethical realm This is not clear. Why is its being the terminal phase mean that war is inevitable? -Hegel talks about the state’s sovereignty with an outside regard Unclear -
- Does Hegel believe that war is always negative? Or does he think that war can be positive?
Hegel criticized peace. A too long peace is a source of passivity, apathy. There is a morbidity of peace. Peace softens and does not arouse any more the movement of life. Hegel uses the metaphor of the decay; stagnant waters are convenient to decay Quotation? -Hegel agrees with Kant about war What exactly does he agree with Kant about war? -
- Hegel states that the "welfare" of the state is its "supreme law ... in its relations with others" (Section 336). Does that mean that anything is justified in its relations with other states?
- How ought war to be waged, according to Hegel? Does Hegel differ from Kant in this respect?
- What role does the "world spirit" play in Hegel's theory of international relations?
- Is the idea of a "world spirit" plausible? What reason might Hegel give us for this idea?
- What are the different forms of community according to Hegel?
According to Hegel, there are three forms of community. They are the family, the civil society and the state. The family is the “realm of unconditional love”. An association with this form of community is unconditional, that is, there are no criteria to be a part of a family. A civil society is the “realm of self-interested individual conditions”. There is freedom and individuality but there is not necessarily a connection between these two ideas. People in a civil society have rights and the individuality exists by acknowledging conflict between people. A state is the “ethical realm”. It consists of individuals preserving cultural identity. This identity is formed through the establishment of laws.Lecture Notes
External Resources
Selected Bibliography
- Avineri, Shlomo. 1962. "Hegel and Nationalism." The Review of Politics, Vol. 24, No. 4., pp. 461-484. Link.
- Mertens, Thomas. 1995. "Hegel's Homage to Kant's Perpetual Peace: An Analysis of Hegel's "Philosophy of Right" §§ 321-340." The Review of Politics, Vol. 57, No. 4., pp. 665-691. Link.
Abstract: At a few places in his "Philosophy of Right" Hegel directly addresses the discussion with his famous predecessor Immanuel Kant. These places indicate very clearly the distinction between the two philosophical standpoints. This article focuses on Hegel's criticism of Kant's views on peace and international law. For two reasons however, it starts with Hegel's rejection of Kant's moral point of view. First, this criticism is presupposed in Hegel's rejection of Kant's view on politics. Second, at least a partial return to Kantian morality is implied in Hegel's statement that war, although not to be condemned categorically, must be limited both quantitatively and qualitatively.- Smith, Steven B. "Hegel's Views on War, the State, and International Relations." The American Political Science Review, Vol. 77, No. 3., pp. 624-632. Link.
Abstract: In this article I argue a thesis about Hegel's views on war different from most previous interpreters, e.g., Popper and Hook on the one side and Avineri and Pelczynski on the other. In particular I argue that his reflections on war are an attempt to answer the problem of political obligation or the question of why should anyone willingly die for the state. Accordingly, I examine briefly Hegel's critique of Kantian morality for its inability to account for political obligation proper and although ultimately I conclude that Hegel never completely extricated himself from Kant's belief in a providentialist historicism leading to a condition of "'perpetual peace,'" I still want to suggest that war remains for Hegel an essential moment in the "'ethical'" life of the state and perhaps the chief means whereby the dignity and autonomy of the state can be exerted over the network of private interests that constitutes civil society.Marx
Table of Contents
Background
Readings
Summary
Study Questions
- What is the relationship between Bourgeois and Proletarians?
Bourgeois are the social class which obtains income from ownership in capital assets, or from commercial activities. They are the ones who have the Proletarian class of people working for them and in turn profit form their labour without doing much if any work.Put simply, the Bourgeois are the owners and controllers of capital. Part of that capital is labour which is provided by the Proletariat or working class. As such, the Bourgeois are reliant on the Proletariat and as industry grows so does the power base of the Proletariat.
The proletariat are tools and slaves of the bourgeoisie Is this a quote? Aside from rhetoric, Marx did not think the proletarians were the slaves of the bourgeoisie -
- What is the relationship between Communists and Proletarians?
The Communists seek to bridge the gap between the Bourgeois and Proletarians whereby the Proletarians will gain political control and thus will become the general class of the nation. This may be implemented through a revolution or merely by political change but the idea seems to suggest a redistribution of power and wealth.- What is the effect of capitalism on national borders and cultures?
Capitalism has the impact of reducing the importance of borders and cultures through the homogenising impact of trade. Capitalists however may play on nationalistic sentiments when it is useful to do so.- What characterises a communist society according to Marx?
A communist society according to Marx is one where the power within the nation is shifted to the dictator and to the working class. No, this is just a transitional stage -- Is a revolution necessary to obtain a communist society; is this inevitable; is it permanent?
Marx accepts that revolution is necessary in the short term, this would ideally follow a huge market collapse or similar breakdown in the capitalist system. During this time of revolution, some despotic measures can be justifiable, but only to aid in the transition.The idea that a proletarian revolution is needed is a cornerstone of Marx's theory on communism; Marxists believe that the workers of the world must unite and free themselves from capitalist oppression to create a world run by and for the working class. Thus, in the Marxist view, proletarian revolutions need to happen in countries all over the world. When the revolution occurred some totalitarian governance was justified in a transitional phase only but was never meant to last. Once such a global revolution had occurred, and the transitional phase had passed then the revolution had ended, therefore it was never meant to be a permanent institution.
Lecture Notes
External Resources
Selected Bibliography
- Elster, Jon. 1986. An Introduction to Karl Marx. Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge University Press. Library catalog.
A sympathetic, though sometimes highly critical, introduction to Marx's thought. It tries to distinguish between "what is living and what is dead" in Marx's thought.Other thinkers